Tor

Tor is an encrypted anonymising network that makes it harder to intercept internet communications, or see where communications are coming from or going to.

In order to use the WikiLeaks public submission system as detailed above you can download the Tor Browser Bundle, which is a Firefox-like browser available for Windows, Mac OS X and GNU/Linux and pre-configured to connect using the anonymising system Tor.

Tails

If you are at high risk and you have the capacity to do so, you can also access the submission system through a secure operating system called Tails. Tails is an operating system launched from a USB stick or a DVD that aim to leaves no traces when the computer is shut down after use and automatically routes your internet traffic through Tor. Tails will require you to have either a USB stick or a DVD at least 4GB big and a laptop or desktop computer.

Tips

Our submission system works hard to preserve your anonymity, but we recommend you also take some of your own precautions. Please review these basic guidelines.

1. Contact us if you have specific problems

If you have a very large submission, or a submission with a complex format, or are a high-risk source, please contact us. In our experience it is always possible to find a custom solution for even the most seemingly difficult situations.

2. What computer to use

If the computer you are uploading from could subsequently be audited in an investigation, consider using a computer that is not easily tied to you. Technical users can also use Tails to help ensure you do not leave any records of your submission on the computer.

3. Do not talk about your submission to others

If you have any issues talk to WikiLeaks. We are the global experts in source protection – it is a complex field. Even those who mean well often do not have the experience or expertise to advise properly. This includes other media organisations.

After

1. Do not talk about your submission to others

If you have any issues talk to WikiLeaks. We are the global experts in source protection – it is a complex field. Even those who mean well often do not have the experience or expertise to advise properly. This includes other media organisations.

2. Act normal

If you are a high-risk source, avoid saying anything or doing anything after submitting which might promote suspicion. In particular, you should try to stick to your normal routine and behaviour.

3. Remove traces of your submission

If you are a high-risk source and the computer you prepared your submission on, or uploaded it from, could subsequently be audited in an investigation, we recommend that you format and dispose of the computer hard drive and any other storage media you used.

In particular, hard drives retain data after formatting which may be visible to a digital forensics team and flash media (USB sticks, memory cards and SSD drives) retain data even after a secure erasure. If you used flash media to store sensitive data, it is important to destroy the media.

If you do this and are a high-risk source you should make sure there are no traces of the clean-up, since such traces themselves may draw suspicion.

4. If you face legal action

If a legal action is brought against you as a result of your submission, there are organisations that may help you. The Courage Foundation is an international organisation dedicated to the protection of journalistic sources. You can find more details at https://www.couragefound.org.

Submit documents to WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks publishes documents of political or historical importance that are censored or otherwise suppressed. We specialise in strategic global publishing and large archives.

The following is the address of our secure site where you can anonymously upload your documents to WikiLeaks editors. You can only access this submissions system through Tor. (See our Tor tab for more information.) We also advise you to read our tips for sources before submitting.

wlupld3ptjvsgwqw.onion

Copy this address into your Tor browser. Advanced users, if they wish, can also add a further layer of encryption to their submission using our public PGP key.

If you cannot use Tor, or your submission is very large, or you have specific requirements, WikiLeaks provides several alternative methods. Contact us to discuss how to proceed.

positive welcome in Sri Lanka
Refs: (A) Colombo 897, and previous
(U) Classified by James F. Entwistle, Deputy Chief of
Mission. Reasons 1.5 (b, d).
1. (C) SUMMARY: Local reaction to the Sri Lanka donor
co-chairs meeting held in Brussels on June 1 has been
largely positive. Embassy interlocutors were
appreciative of the international community's sustained
support for the peace process. Media coverage has been
light so far and focused on the linkages between aid and
progress in the peace talks. All in all, the co-chairs'
statement has reassured Sri Lankans that the
international community remains committed to the peace
process and that the group is looking for the government
and the Tigers to find a way to meet at the peace table
soon. END SUMMARY.
2. (C) POLITICAL REACTION: While there has been no
official reaction from President Kumaratunga's office as
of late June 3 regarding the meeting of the four co-
chairs of the Tokyo Process (EU, Japan, Norway, and the
U.S.), the reaction from political contacts have been
largely positive. Excerpts of reaction follow:
-- Harim Peiris, Presidential Spokesman and Director
General of the Office of Rehabilitation, Reconstruction,
and Refugees, told poloff he felt the renewed attention
on Sri Lanka in the wake of the June 1 co-chairs meeting
was extremely positive. He stressed the GSL's keen
desire to resume talks and the government's focus now on
resolving modalities and the core issues to be discussed
when talks recommence. Peiris realized, however, that a
successful return to peace negotiations would require
compromises by all parties. He also noted that Sri
Lanka's economic health was linked in large part to the
rehabilitation work that would come with the
disbursement of the $4.5 billion in aid pledged at the
June 2003 Tokyo donors conference.
-- R. Sampathan, a senior MP with the pro-Tiger Tamil
National Alliance (TNA), welcomed the co-chairs'
continued support and the surrounding positive publicity
for the peace process. Feeling that current efforts to
resume peace negotiations were faring only somewhat
well, Sampathan underscored that the interim
administration proposal by the Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam (LTTE) was "fundamental to a lasting
solution." In this regard, he was hopeful that both
sides would heed the co-chairs' call for a return to the
peace table. Although he recognized the logical need
for donor aid to be contingent on progress with the
peace process, Sampathan was worried that, without
progress, aid would get directed elsewhere and not to
the north/east where it was a "dire necessity."
-- Naveen Dissanayake, a United National Party (UNP) MP
from the hill country, told poloff that he hoped the GSL
would take particular note of the co-chairs statement
urging the resumption of talks. Dissanayake felt that
the government had not fully thought out its plan of
action for the peace process and the message from the
international community would provide incentive for the
GSL to focus on the challenging issues surrounding
negotiations. Commenting on the UNP's recent electoral
loss, Dissanayake said he also hoped, with the political
dynamic reversed, that President Kumaratunga would
dialogue with the UNP on the status and progress in
peace talks. (One of the President's major gripes with
the former UNP government was that she felt excluded
from its peace efforts.)
3. (C) Interlocutors from local think-tanks and civil
society also thought the co-chairs' statement was
positive and timely. Some of their reaction follows:
-- Jehan Perera, director of the National Peace Council,
a local civil society NGO, told poloff that he welcomed
the declaration by the co-chairs that they would remain
supportive of the GSL and the peace process. Knowing
that full release of the aid pledged at Tokyo in June
2003 would require progress in negotiations, Perera
wondered how the donors would respond if the situation
remained static -- both sides expressing willingness to
talk, but being unable to agree on the on how to move
the process forward. He thought, therefore, that the
possible loss of donor aid would ultimately put more
pressure on the LTTE to compromise and return to the
table. The GSL, he said, still has other sources of aid
and funding.
-- Echoing many of the same comments as Perera, Kethesh
Logananthan from the Center for Policy Alternatives, a
local think-tank, told poloff that the co-chairs'
statement would provide the needed push to get the peace
process back on track. Even if progress in the talks was
slow, he thought the Tigers would not give up their
economic interest in pursuing peace. Reflecting further
on the fact that the pledged aid was tied to progress at
the peace table, Logananthan said it was imperative for
the donor community to establish benchmarks for
"progress in the peace talks."
4. (C) MEDIA REACTION: Local media coverage of the
June 1 press statement by the co-chairs has been mainly
straightforward. Coverage of the meeting were scattered
through the English and vernacular presses. Many of the
reports focused on the conditionality of the pledged
aid, being tied to progress in the peace process. While
the Tigers have not publicly commented on the statement,
the pro-LTTE website, "TamilNet," contained the entire
statement and highlighted the co-chairs' comment that
there should be "no drift and no delay" in resuming the
peace process.
5. (C) COMMENT: On the whole, the substance and timing
of the June 1 statement by the co-chairs seems to have
been well-received locally as a demonstration of the
international community's support of the peace effort.
The language on aid clearly caught people's attention:
a common theme touched on by contacts was one of concern
that the donors could reach a point where they decided
conditions for the pledged aid at Tokyo were not being
met. END COMMENT.
6. (U) Minimize considered.
LUNSTEAD

Raw content

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 000911
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR D, SA, SA/INS, SA/PD, EAP/J, EUR/NB, EUR/ERA
NSC FOR E. MILLARD
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06-03-14
TAGS: PREL, PGOV, EAID, CE, NO, JA, EU, LTTE - Peace Process, Political Parties
SUBJECT: Co-chairs meeting in Brussels receives a
positive welcome in Sri Lanka
Refs: (A) Colombo 897, and previous
(U) Classified by James F. Entwistle, Deputy Chief of
Mission. Reasons 1.5 (b, d).
1. (C) SUMMARY: Local reaction to the Sri Lanka donor
co-chairs meeting held in Brussels on June 1 has been
largely positive. Embassy interlocutors were
appreciative of the international community's sustained
support for the peace process. Media coverage has been
light so far and focused on the linkages between aid and
progress in the peace talks. All in all, the co-chairs'
statement has reassured Sri Lankans that the
international community remains committed to the peace
process and that the group is looking for the government
and the Tigers to find a way to meet at the peace table
soon. END SUMMARY.
2. (C) POLITICAL REACTION: While there has been no
official reaction from President Kumaratunga's office as
of late June 3 regarding the meeting of the four co-
chairs of the Tokyo Process (EU, Japan, Norway, and the
U.S.), the reaction from political contacts have been
largely positive. Excerpts of reaction follow:
-- Harim Peiris, Presidential Spokesman and Director
General of the Office of Rehabilitation, Reconstruction,
and Refugees, told poloff he felt the renewed attention
on Sri Lanka in the wake of the June 1 co-chairs meeting
was extremely positive. He stressed the GSL's keen
desire to resume talks and the government's focus now on
resolving modalities and the core issues to be discussed
when talks recommence. Peiris realized, however, that a
successful return to peace negotiations would require
compromises by all parties. He also noted that Sri
Lanka's economic health was linked in large part to the
rehabilitation work that would come with the
disbursement of the $4.5 billion in aid pledged at the
June 2003 Tokyo donors conference.
-- R. Sampathan, a senior MP with the pro-Tiger Tamil
National Alliance (TNA), welcomed the co-chairs'
continued support and the surrounding positive publicity
for the peace process. Feeling that current efforts to
resume peace negotiations were faring only somewhat
well, Sampathan underscored that the interim
administration proposal by the Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam (LTTE) was "fundamental to a lasting
solution." In this regard, he was hopeful that both
sides would heed the co-chairs' call for a return to the
peace table. Although he recognized the logical need
for donor aid to be contingent on progress with the
peace process, Sampathan was worried that, without
progress, aid would get directed elsewhere and not to
the north/east where it was a "dire necessity."
-- Naveen Dissanayake, a United National Party (UNP) MP
from the hill country, told poloff that he hoped the GSL
would take particular note of the co-chairs statement
urging the resumption of talks. Dissanayake felt that
the government had not fully thought out its plan of
action for the peace process and the message from the
international community would provide incentive for the
GSL to focus on the challenging issues surrounding
negotiations. Commenting on the UNP's recent electoral
loss, Dissanayake said he also hoped, with the political
dynamic reversed, that President Kumaratunga would
dialogue with the UNP on the status and progress in
peace talks. (One of the President's major gripes with
the former UNP government was that she felt excluded
from its peace efforts.)
3. (C) Interlocutors from local think-tanks and civil
society also thought the co-chairs' statement was
positive and timely. Some of their reaction follows:
-- Jehan Perera, director of the National Peace Council,
a local civil society NGO, told poloff that he welcomed
the declaration by the co-chairs that they would remain
supportive of the GSL and the peace process. Knowing
that full release of the aid pledged at Tokyo in June
2003 would require progress in negotiations, Perera
wondered how the donors would respond if the situation
remained static -- both sides expressing willingness to
talk, but being unable to agree on the on how to move
the process forward. He thought, therefore, that the
possible loss of donor aid would ultimately put more
pressure on the LTTE to compromise and return to the
table. The GSL, he said, still has other sources of aid
and funding.
-- Echoing many of the same comments as Perera, Kethesh
Logananthan from the Center for Policy Alternatives, a
local think-tank, told poloff that the co-chairs'
statement would provide the needed push to get the peace
process back on track. Even if progress in the talks was
slow, he thought the Tigers would not give up their
economic interest in pursuing peace. Reflecting further
on the fact that the pledged aid was tied to progress at
the peace table, Logananthan said it was imperative for
the donor community to establish benchmarks for
"progress in the peace talks."
4. (C) MEDIA REACTION: Local media coverage of the
June 1 press statement by the co-chairs has been mainly
straightforward. Coverage of the meeting were scattered
through the English and vernacular presses. Many of the
reports focused on the conditionality of the pledged
aid, being tied to progress in the peace process. While
the Tigers have not publicly commented on the statement,
the pro-LTTE website, "TamilNet," contained the entire
statement and highlighted the co-chairs' comment that
there should be "no drift and no delay" in resuming the
peace process.
5. (C) COMMENT: On the whole, the substance and timing
of the June 1 statement by the co-chairs seems to have
been well-received locally as a demonstration of the
international community's support of the peace effort.
The language on aid clearly caught people's attention:
a common theme touched on by contacts was one of concern
that the donors could reach a point where they decided
conditions for the pledged aid at Tokyo were not being
met. END COMMENT.
6. (U) Minimize considered.
LUNSTEAD

Metadata

This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

Print

You can use this tool to generate a print-friendly PDF of the document 04COLOMBO911_a.

Include summaryInclude headersInclude raw metadata

Share

The formal reference of this document is 04COLOMBO911_a, please use it for anything written about this document. This will permit you and others to search for it.

Direct link to documentReddit codeHTML codeForum code (bbcode)

Submit this story

Help Expand The Public Library of US Diplomacy

Your role is important:
WikiLeaks maintains its robust independence through your contributions.